John Larson of Mormon Expression did a book review of Mormon Enigma by Linda Newell and Valeen Avery. John gives a very interesting introduction to the book. In light of my recent post Latter-day Dissent, I thought I would continue the theme of how the church deals with intellectuals.
This book was published in the fall of 1984. There sort of a back story to it.
Both of the women who wrote the book were faithful, active members. One has passed away; the other is still alive today. They both still remain active members of the church. There was sort of a controversy around the book. A priesthood circular went all, I think all through Utah telling all priesthood leaders that they were not allowed to have either woman speak about the book in any setting.
At the time, during the 1980’s there was the “Know Your Religion” series, and it was really common to have firesides about people who knew something about something or the other. They got stopped immediately. The two women actually requested and were granted a meeting with the top brass; they met with [Dallin] Oaks and [Neal A.] Maxwell [both were apostles]. This would be around the early summer of 1985.
The meeting went back and forth. What was really confusing to the authors is that they remained members in good standing, although there were rumors going around that they would be excommunicated or whatever, but they were never told anything. That went out into that sort of secret circular letter and they only knew about it because they had friends who were stake presidents who shared it with them. When they met with the Brethren, they said ‘what’s going on?’
Oaks said something very informative. I pulled this out of Dialogue magazine. “If Mormon Enigma reveals any information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith then it is necessary to try to”–I can’t read my own writing–to try to, I think “stop it’s influence and that of its authors.” They basically said, it doesn’t matter if what you are saying is true or not, if you’re going to say something that’s outside the normal line, we don’t want you talking about it.
Of course the authors were blacklisted. You can read about the blacklisting in Arrington’s book, Adventures of a Church Historian. He talks about it quite extensively. The church maintains a blacklist of all the books and authors that are not allowed to be quoted. This effectively ruined the two women’s careers for speaking or engaging with the active Latter-day Saints, although you can still buy this book through Deseret Book. It remains sort of an enigma itself, so I guess that’s fitting for the book.
That’s the background of the book. Zilpha’s wagging something in my face. What’s this?
Oh yeah, the book won several awards. In 1984 it won an award from the Mormon History Association for best book. It also won an award from BYU, which sort of put the church in a bind because they had recognized it as a great book and then they were stopping it at the same time.
This sort of action really bothers me. As I mentioned in my previous post, I would like to start writing Mormon history articles and/or books. I’m looking to write good, honest history. This blacklisting just seems a bit sneaky and dishonest to me. I don’t think the rumors about these 2 women’s reputation is fair or Christlike. It’s as if the church is saying in a Jack Nicholson voice, “You can’t handle the truth.”
Why can’t we be honest with our history? Is it really a good idea to suppress unflattering information? None of us are perfect. Joseph and Emma weren’t either. Is it really good to believe in whitewashed myths about them? Can’t truth be inspiring as well?
Wheat & Tares 
In terms of the relationship between the Church and the its Scholars, I would note two things: it seems to me that the Church has moved on a great deal since the time when this was written. Second, Armand Mauss’ response to DHO comments about alternate voices, published at Sunstone and reprinted at T&S, outlines what it means to engage the Church intellectually and it can still speak to concerns we have today even if the climate has changed somewhat.
I think the Church’s stance is counter-productive in today’s day and age. In previous decades, the Church could effectively control information, much like happened in various nations and regimes in the past. They could control the message and suppress anything that didn’t “fit the message” through blacklisting, excommunication (or threats), etc.
Fast forward to today. The Church can no longer do this. For example, they publish a “Teachings for our Times” manual about Brigham Young, and include in the first 15-20 pages a “background” of his life. They talk about him being a carpenter, etc. But nowhere do they mention polygamy. What is a major part of his life isn’t even mentioned once, even in his biography.
However, the Church not even mentioning it doesn’t make it disappear. It just means that when people look into BY’s polygamy, they go to sites that may or may not have the Church’s best interests in mind. So, ironically, by trying to “control” the message, they have actually LOST control of the message and the context in which it is presented. This needs to be changed.
That is a wonderful book! High recommendations to any who haven’t read it.
mike, I have heard that line of reasoning, but I don’t agree. I think the church could pull another s6 scenario again, so I don’t think the internet is doing anything to prevent the church from attempting to demonize intellectuals. perhaps the brethren have learned from the past, but perhaps some will repeat the mistakes of the past too. it is still very much an open question, imo.
Has anything happened with the authors of “In Sacred Loneliness” or “the Book of Mammon”, or “Rough Stone Rolling”? Certainly all of those books don’t paint the best happy-go-luck picture of everything, but unless the book makes really blatant claims (i.e., “Insiders View”), I think they are willing to let stuff slide.
how do you define blatant? grant palmer, thomas murphy and simon southerton are on the blacklist I am sure, and I wouldn’t be surprised if richard bushman is blacklisted too.
Your questions are good questions, but they presume we can know history and find the truth.
It ain’t that simple, and therein lies the conflict.
MH,
History is fuzzy. History is bias. History depends on who is telling the story and where they got the story. It is hard to get accurate. It is hard to know what happened 200 years ago. Two hundred years from now, when someone tells the life story of Obama, they will get a different perspective from Dick Cheney than they would from Al Gore’s. Both were VP’s and both personally knew the President, but they will provide completely different accounts of Obama. The author will be bias. They will read both accounts, but will still render their own opinion and express that opinion on the book. Likewise, you would get a far different perspective of Jesus Christ from a Publican then you would from Simon Peter. Moreover, an atheist would get a far different perspective then a Christian.
This is why the church has a problem with people telling history about the church that are not authorized to tell the history. This is why they distance themselves from some authors. The authors simply don’t know what really happened. They have clues and opinions from people of that day, but history is not always what it seems, or what someone say’s it was.
Will:
I would agree with you in general, but when the Church “spins” things it doesn’t want completely out of its history, it has nothing to do with “accuracy” or sources. When an official manual about BY doesn’t even mention polygamy, even if it is just putting it in context, it doesn’t mean that history is not always what it seems, or what someone say’s it was, but merely that they want to control history.
#8 – I’ve always found this argument pretty unconvincing. The church isn’t saying “because we can’t know what happened, no one should speculate or discuss this aspect of history at all.” The church has always been perfectly willing to put forth its view of historical events. It’s only when a view that doesn’t “build testimonies” is presented that the church becomes concerned about whether we have the whole picture. In other words, the church trusts its version of events implicitly. It trusts the memories, quotes, actions and motives of those who support the church, but questions and impugnes those who don’t. If we really can’t know what happened, then the church should stay silent as well, but it doesn’t do that. That being the case, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that it allow others with different viewpoints to advance their equally credible (if not moreso) positions.
Mike S.
It is about making judgments. Take Emma for instance. I have read my own great-grand fathers accounts and experiences with Emma as he interviewed her as the Mission President of the Eastern States mission. She wanted nothing to do with religion at the end of her life –according to his interview with her, about the past 15 years of her life. Not just the faith started by her husband or sons – no religion. His account contradicts accounts made by the others, including other religions. I have no reason to disbelieve him; however, I don’t know what his motive was. I wasn’t there. I don’t know if that account was true. If that is the way Emma felt, I am not about to judge her or the trials she went through. That judgment is up to God.
Likewise, I am not going to judge supposed statements or actions made by previous church leaders outside of conference or outside of their role as a church leaders. I don’t know what was said and I am not about to make those judgments.
Brjones
“It trusts the memories, quotes, actions and motives of those who support the church, but questions and impugnes those who don’t.”
Duh! That’s why it’s referred to as a faith. The same could be said for any other faith.
If this is about faith, Will, then please stop trying to make a rational, logical argument as to why it makes sense that the church would try to shout down those offering alternate accounts of history. At least be intellectually honest and say that the church only wants its version of events to be presented, even though at the end of the day they’re no more objectively credible than anyone else’s. From an obedience/faith standpoint that’s perfectly consistent. Any other explanation is flimsy and transparent.
I think of Newell and Avery as heroes. They put together an amazing book and reading how they did it and what happen to them afterward is also fascinating. I remember an institute teacher criticizing their use of a quote from a source of questionable character that disparaged the character of JS. But the point was that it was a book about Emma and how living surrounded by such rumors would have affected her. I always thought it would have been great for screenplay adaptation and (back in 1984) thought that Demi Moore would have been perfect for the leading role. (We CAN handle the truth!)
And what about Orson Scott Card’s “Saints”?
Wow Will #11. “Duh! …” Was the duh really necessary? I seldom find that vernacular used outside of elementary school.
Will, there are some things in history that are not “hard to get accurate.” You can go to familysearch.org and find out how many wives Brigham Young or Joseph Smith had, but you can’t find that out by reading any church RS or Priesthood manuals. It is not fuzzy at all, and you don’t need to be biased at all to admit this fact. In fact, I would argue that by refusing to acknowledge these undisputed facts, it is the church that is unfairly biased.
I guess what is funny to me regarding polygamy is this. On the one hand, the church does acknowledge that polygamy was practiced. It’s not really a secret, and it’s still in D&C 132. But the church doesn’t seem to want anyone to know any details, so they obscure the fact that Joseph, Brigham, and all the early prophets practiced it. They emphasize OD 1, they love to quote Eliza R Snow, and we sing hymns written by her (O My Father), but refuse to publicize the fact that Eliza was a polygamous wife to both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith.
So Will, these facts are not fuzzy. It does not depend on bias. It doesn’t depend on who tells the story. Everyone who knows anything about church history does not dispute these facts. If polygamy is such an eternal principle, why does the church continue to obscure the eternal principle of polygamy that was “righteously” practiced by Eliza, Joseph, Brigham, and Emma? (It is not really disputed by scholars that Emma gave permission for Joseph to marry the Partridge sisters, yet you’ll never hear that fact when discussing celestial marriage.)
Why are we hiding these facts if polygamy is still a celestial principle?
Angie, could you clarify your point about Orson Scott Card? I don’t understand.
Aaron, I just read the article you posted in comment #1. It is good (and hard) advice to follow. Thanks for posting the link!
Hey MH (16):
I think the church is slowly changing in regards to Eliza Snow. I substituted teaching seminary last week, and we were covering the history of the church from the latter part of BY through Lorenzo Snow. There were a goodly number of quotes from Eliza, and her name was always written in the manual as Eliza R. Snow Smith. I was happily surprised also by the amount of coverage polygamy got, but, the class (only 2 girls) had many more questions about it than the manual answered. So I (*gasp*) used extra-manual sources to answer their questions.
So, not great, but better than what I remember being taught even in my BYU D&C class.
MH,
I said nothing of polygamy. I find it an odd practice and could not practice it myself, but I have no problem with any previous prophets practicing polygamy – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph or Brigham. As the Lord said in the Book of Mormon, sometimes it is necessary.
will, this post is about history. I used polygamy as an example of the church glossing over uncomfortable aspects of history. your defense was that ‘nobody really knows/fuzzy’, etc yet these facts about history show that we really do know certain things. avery and newell were revealing things that are true, but perhaps unflattering to joseph smith. is it acceptable for the church to suppress unflattering truth? if so, how can the church claim make truth claims about the gospel when it only tells the flattering side?
“Is it acceptable for the church to suppress unflattering truth? if so, how can the church make truth claims about the gospel when it only tells the flattering side?”
Unfortunately, people not only accept it, they embrace only focusing on the flattering side and they also get upset or view you as an apostate if you bring up the not so flattering side. It makes members look naive and foolish when they won’t listen to all the facts of church history. It happened and we have to deal with it, not shove it under the table. Truth is truth no matter how ugly it is. Of course what Joseph did isn’t faith promoting, how could it be? Those around him struggled with what he was doing, even his closest friends. And I don’t know how Emma put up with all the secret relationships he had behind her back, she probably just felt like she didn’t have any options, what a living hell.
I feel that Joseph is accountable for the situation in Colorado City. They believe in living as he did when he was practicing polygamy secretively, but the church completely separates themselves from them as if they had nothing to do with it. Joseph is the whole reason why they exist, but the church ignores the ugly parts of what Joseph did and just focuses on what they consider the good, then they expect members not to talk about it. I just recently heard a talk on being honest in all you do and say and couldn’t help but laugh. Where is the honesty from the church? Seriously, from a church that puts so much emphasis on example, what can they say about theirs?
Will #20
Please provide one instance when Polygamy was necessary in the latter days.
How many lessons do we have about Moses’ wives, or Abraham’s wives or David’s wives or Saul’s wives?
Many, many polygamists throughout history, yet we don’t have a focus on it or mentions in the manuals for the most part.
Unless someone is seriously suggesting we need to put it in the manuals to encourage the practice in our time?
Good point. Perhaps – and most likely – the Church ™ does feel like it’s being honest by sharing what it does. Whether we use the excuse of paring down the manuals to the bare basics, or whether we just focus on x and y at church, there are more than enough excuses to go around.
Point is, not enough members actually delve into the aspects you’re alluding to. If they did, perhaps the Church would be more forthright about it… at least I/we can hope. And, unfortunately, it probably won’t be in some mass letter to everyone so many members will continue to brush it away as either irrelevant, untrue or worse.
To me, that’s the worst part… so little is known of our history that, often, when you bring something up it’s viewed as either untrue, false or from some dubious anti source. Many LDS don’t even have the integrity of acknowledging that good, thoughtful information can and does come from outside the Church ™, instead requiring that information come from “approved” sources (i.e. official church publications).
@ Stephen:
Yeah, but you’d have to admit that it’s been quite some time since we’ve had an entire year devoted to a manual on Moses’ or Abraham’s or David’s teachings – i.e., Teachings of the Prophet Abraham.
We’re talking about a manual devoted to the life AND teachings of someone who’s most illustrious discourses were focused on celestial plural marriage being a requirement for exaltation… .
If we’re to study the man for 50 weeks or thereabouts, why can’t we devote at least 1 week to what the guy taught about the Family or Marriage and actually delve into what he taught?
There is a huge difference between what Mike suggested and your response.
How many lessons do we have about Moses’ wives, or Abraham’s wives or David’s wives or Saul’s wives?
When we discuss D&C 132, we talk about David’s wives, since it is quoted in that section. We also talk about Uriah and how David took his wife after he had David killed. It’s not really a good example of celestial marriage, is it?
Concerning Abraham, we do talk about Hagar a bit. Since she was the least favored of Abraham and mother of Ishmael, it’s hard to avoid. It’s another example of strange Old Testament customs. Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael in the desert, and Hagar has an angelic visitor directing her to water. What’s strange to me is that this is waht the Muslims celebrate in their pilgrimage to Mecca, but we don’t get that out of Sunday School lessons either.
What’s funny is that I’m sure the early saints talked about biblical polygamy quite a bit. Certainly we don’t dwell on these stories like early saints did, nor do we use the story of Abraham to try to understand Islam any better.
“Is it really a good idea to suppress unflattering information? None of us are perfect. Joseph and Emma weren’t either. Is it really good to believe in whitewashed myths about them? Can’t truth be inspiring as well?”
I would actually say yes, it is a good idea. It is so much easier to sell the message that marriage is ordained of God, that it is defined as being a union between one man and one woman, and that couples should love and honor one another and maintain complete fidelity. This simply allows the Church to capitalize on values already maintained by a broad cross-section of the broader respectable public (even if said public doesn’t entirely live these virtues perfectly – they still recognize the virtues)
On the other hand, it is very near impossible to teach that while maintaining the history of your venerated leaders whose own “family” practices were a theologically engineered antithesis of those core values.
Yes tell the Saints of Joseph Smith’s revelations, or Brigham’s sermons, that paired God-hood/Exaltation with the New and Everlasting Covenant of Plural Marriage. See how long they last, and how quickly conversion numbers dwindle. Let them know that Joseph Smith lied to the saints (HoC v: 5) in order to protect the secret society of polygamy – and then try and justify it. Let them know of Emma’s heartache and confusion of finding out (after the fact) that her entire relief-society presidency was married to her husband.
Let them know about how Church leaders (Hyrum in particular, but Joseph couldn’t get away with it) purposely defaulted on personal home loans to repurchase the properties under the Church’s credit at discount auction rates. Let them know that Joseph Smith divinely translated the Kinderhook plates – an irrefutable hoax document intended to trap Joseph Smith.
Tell them how Joseph Smith not only translated The Book of Mormon by “the power and gift of God”, but also by the aid of scrying stones – magic occultic rocks – which he also used to magically find pirate loot (I know, spanish mines). See how long conversion numbers last!
Yes, it is a very good idea for the Church to try and lock these facts in the archives and throw-away the key. The next best strategy is to just never “officially” engage in conversation on these topics – and to be generally dismissive. Who cares if people are confused so long as they keep paying tithing.
It’s just not honest – and yes Will, these things are all verifiable!
cowboy, I guess presentation matters. I am not advocating an anti-mormon approach where we are trying to show the church is completely false. nor am I interested in a head in the sand mentality where difficult things are completely ignored. we don’t need to gravitate to these extremes, yet it seems that people naturally want to do that as your last comment seems to imply.
I think these issues you raise can be dealt with in a reasonable, rational, and faithful way, and that is the approach that I am advocating. perhaps the reason this approach hasn’t been done is because the polar extremes are much easier to put together. it takes effort to look at these issues in a faithful, rational way, and too few people want to take the time to do that. it bothers me that the people who do try this approach are demonized by people at the extremes.
the church grew exponentially when polygamy was practiced, in spite of public opposition to the practice, so it is not a given that the church will immediately fold due to unconventional doctrines. firetag has said time and again that growth rates based on doctrines don’t change that much, but doctrines do appeal to different segments of society, so who joins the church is different based on doctrines.
Fair enough – my comment was highly cynical, so I apologize for the tack I took on it.
Let’s put it another way – presentation does matter. Yes, one could emphasize all the bad or all the good, but I wonder how relativistic all of these things are. For instance, while yes, we can point to many good things about the Church, some inspiring points about its history, etc, just as easily as we can point to the bad – it is a fallacy to think that when taken in aggregate – most members will create an “average” in their mind. There are absolute data points that sway the scale for certain people, due to an inordinate weighting placed on that point by a particular person. These may be different for different people – but I think many of us have them. For example, I have heard many faithful members say that they have come to terms with the fact that polygamy is a part of the Mormon past – but for them the buck would stop with the reinstitution of that policy. Others are not able seperate it out like that. Some people feel so divinely inspired by The Book of Mormon that its mere existence outweigh’s everything – regardless of its historicity. Other’s are moved to reject the entire thing based on this.
So, that being said – the only practical way for the Church to become and stay mainstream is by avoiding any kind of controversey (theological not political) that put’s into the extreme. This is particularly relevant when one considers that the Church does have a target market – in my mission we called them the “elect”, but generally came down to middle to upper-class families. Most of these families would be turned off just one of the many details I mentioned, with no possibility of rebalancing from all the other “good” that could be argued. Quite simply – even as a doctrine, Nauvoo era polygamy would be a deal breaker for many peoples confidence in Joseph Smith. So the Church is smart to try and bury it.
Cowboy, with every solution there are pros and cons. The con of the “head in the sand” mentality is that people become disillusioned when they find out the truth, and people leave. So these same middle-upper class families are leaving over feeling “lied” to, and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
I guess we debate the idea of where the “average” is. I think that when we can speak cleanly about the past, we can get a more informed spiritual group of members in the church. However, the “head in the sand” approach works well with people that don’t want to dig deep into the church. I’m not a fan of blind faith, or “dumb” members. I guess that’s why I find church boring–because it has been dumbed down so much in an effort to simplify. I want a mature faith that’s not afraid of hiding things.
I’m not Catholic, so I can’t speak for them very well. While I’m sure they don’t go out of their way to discuss the corrupt popes they’ve had, I don’t think they will deny that certain popes were corrupt and did terrible things like the Crusades.
MH –
To be clear, I agree with you. An honest faith is a “better” faith, and Church would be more enjoyable it were more open. However, from the Church Headquarters position, it would also be detrimental to growth. I’m not convinced that the whole truth somehow “balances” out to some middle of the road perspective about the ultimate truth of the Church. Taken in whole, most people will still have to be left to decide, not whether the Church is “good”, but rather – whether it is “true”. My bias says that for a large percentage of the population there are some major deal breakers in the whole truth. I think the Church office knows this, which is why they have strategically watered down the message. I also don’t think that the “evidences” for or against, even out. I would think (though I don’t know) that the probabilities are unevenly weighted – so in practical terms, a forthright approach would have negative overall impacts on the Church. It’s a business decision – it’s just not great religion.
I totally get where you’re coming from. I am afraid that the church is run by too many businessmen and not enough theologians-we are serving mammon rather than god. we need to quit running the church solely concerned with growth and start being more concerned with god. while there may be some short term growth problems, I believe that if we focus on the truth, growth will naturally follow. jesus focused on truth, not growth. while persecutions raged initially, no unhallowed hand stopped the work from progressing. doing what is right will lead to long term growth, imo. focusing on the short term isn’t a good strategy in the long run.
Agreed – but Jesus did much more than preach truth. He performed miracles – not of least of which he sustained a three year ministry without collecting money. This is by far the most underplayed miracle wrought by Jesus, but very few Church’s talk about it. He sent his apostles out on the Charge that they take neither purse or scrip, and taught them the “economy of heaven” (which is much different from the absurd way Joseph used that phrase). He sustained multitudes by multiplying their victuals. He paid taxes through miracle, he caused the disciples to wreck their fishing nets in consequence of the massive haul of fish. He did not need to run his Church like a business, as he truly subdued all things. Anybody can preach a Christian message, but only a true Church of Christ could focus on theology having no need to expend efforts in the business sector.